An "obesity" tax is being proposed in New York that mirrors cigarette taxing. The new bad guy? Sugary drinks. The proposal adds an 18% tax onto existing taxes to any beverages that contain less than 70 percent natural fruit juice, which includes not just sodas but also a lot of the popular so-called " fruit juices" or "nectars" available.
The hope is that people will think twice about buying the cheap, empty calorie sodas that are big contributors (though not the only cause) to our U.S. obesity epidemic. According to an
article in the New York Times, the New York state budget director has explained, “We are seeing an obesity epidemic: One out of every four New Yorkers is obese, up from about 14 percent in 1995,” and there are hopes that this tax may be able to reduce that percentage by 5%. For those who would choose to continue to buy the drinks, the extra money would go towards public health programs.
Obviously there are strong reactions to this proposal. Some experts including Marion Nestle who I mentioned in a post last week (
see here ) feel it may be worth a shot while others such as members of the beverage industry are strongly against it (obviously).
Some of those quoted within the article mention that this proposal will have a big impact on lower income families. As I have mentioned in previous posts, it is often the lower socioeconomic neighborhoods that suffer from higher than normal obesity rates as as result of food deserts where the only option to buy groceries is the closest corner store. It's the hunger and obesity paradox, because what is in those stores? Calorie rich, nutrionally poor cheap sweet drinks, chips, etc. So is it a bad thing that those facing these food deserts might not be able to afford the 18% tax? Any deterrant away from those choices does not seem like a bad thing.
Yet again this feels like we are circling around much big problem displaying the obvious need to educate and teach nutrition and lifestyle changes. Unfortunately education takes money and resources and so begins the debate. In addition, if you are a single parent of four children who is so overwhelmed with work, taking care of the children, and just making sure they eat perhaps focusing on the bottom line is the only way to get your attention at this point. Do you have time to attend nutrition education programs? Maybe not. Will you notice when that case of coke becomes significantly more expensive. Probably, and it will force you to make a change. Maybe not for what some may call "the right reasons", but with the same end result.
I might be biased but maybe if we spent a little more of our federal money on our own domestic health problems instead of on (ahem) other unnamed countries we could start making some changes.
What do you think? I'm not sure there is a definitive answer at this point.
An "obesity" tax is being proposed in New York that mirrors cigarette taxing. The new bad guy? Sugary drinks. The proposal adds an 18% tax onto existing taxes to any beverages that contain less than 70 percent natural fruit juice, which includes not just sodas but also a lot of the popular so-called " fruit juices" or "nectars" available.
The hope is that people will think twice about buying the cheap, empty calorie sodas that are big contributors (though not the only cause) to our U.S. obesity epidemic. According to an article in the New York Times, the New York state budget director has explained, “We are seeing an obesity epidemic: One out of every four New Yorkers is obese, up from about 14 percent in 1995,” and there are hopes that this tax may be able to reduce that percentage by 5%. For those who would choose to continue to buy the drinks, the extra money would go towards public health programs.
Obviously there are strong reactions to this proposal. Some experts including Marion Nestle who I mentioned in a post last week ( see here ) feel it may be worth a shot while others such as members of the beverage industry are strongly against it (obviously).
Some of those quoted within the article mention that this proposal will have a big impact on lower income families. As I have mentioned in previous posts, it is often the lower socioeconomic neighborhoods that suffer from higher than normal obesity rates as as result of food deserts where the only option to buy groceries is the closest corner store. It's the hunger and obesity paradox, because what is in those stores? Calorie rich, nutrionally poor cheap sweet drinks, chips, etc. So is it a bad thing that those facing these food deserts might not be able to afford the 18% tax? Any deterrant away from those choices does not seem like a bad thing.
Yet again this feels like we are circling around much big problem displaying the obvious need to educate and teach nutrition and lifestyle changes. Unfortunately education takes money and resources and so begins the debate. In addition, if you are a single parent of four children who is so overwhelmed with work, taking care of the children, and just making sure they eat perhaps focusing on the bottom line is the only way to get your attention at this point. Do you have time to attend nutrition education programs? Maybe not. Will you notice when that case of coke becomes significantly more expensive. Probably, and it will force you to make a change. Maybe not for what some may call "the right reasons", but with the same end result.
I might be biased but maybe if we spent a little more of our federal money on our own domestic health problems instead of on (ahem) other unnamed countries we could start making some changes.
What do you think? I'm not sure there is a definitive answer at this point.